The Ohm Boy <JKOSS00@ricevm1.rice.edu> (08/07/90)
On 2 Aug 90, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
- If it were made available during the discovery process, then why did
- this trial ever get off the ground? Or, did the prosecution merely
- ignore the fact that this evidence existed in the pursuit of a
- witch-hunt?
I am wondering if any of the statements made by BellSouth and/or
their legal mouthpiece(s) were said under oath. I would assume,
naively, that a sworn oath of affirmation would have to be made before
Neidorf could be arrested for the supposed crime. If so, wouldn't that
imply that BellSouth perjured themselves? IF BellSouth and/or the
representatives thereof have indeed perjured themselves, why has
nobody been arrested ? I seem to recall that perjury was a felony,
although I guess you can get away with anything if you have 6.02 x
10^23 lawyers on retainer.
In the {Washington Post} article of 2 August 1990, by Willie Schatz
( Washington Post Staff Writer ) was the following:
- "We weren't aware that this information was publicily available," said
- a government source who requested anonymity. "We're pretty
- disappointed about this. We'll have to review our relationship with
- these people if this continues."
Now can somebody explain why the feds would re-evaluate a
relationship IF and only IF 'this continues'. I would think that the
ethical thing to do would be for the feds to TERMINATE their
relationship(s) with BellSouth immediately, rather than waiting for
them to possibly perjure themselves in the future.
Disclaimer: This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any
organizations or persons, living, dead or brain-dead, is purely
coincidental. However, flames via e-mail are always appreciated.Mike Godwin <mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu> (08/07/90)
In article <10518@accuvax.nwu.edu> JKOSS00@ricevm1.rice.edu (The Ohm Boy) writes: > I am wondering if any of the statements made by BellSouth and/or >their legal mouthpiece(s) were said under oath. I would assume, >naively, that a sworn oath of affirmation would have to be made before >Neidorf could be arrested for the supposed crime. If so, wouldn't that >imply that BellSouth perjured themselves? It is not necessary that the information used by prosecutors be sworn statements. The Supreme Court has held that sometimes an anonymous tip can be sufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of a search or arrest warrant. But even if the prosecutors relied on sworn grand-jury testimony, it is possible that their Bell South sources did not commit perjury, since their valuation of the E911 document may in some sense be "accurate" -- that is, based on actual data concerning the costs of development. If someone asked me what my Macintosh costs, and I interpreted the question to mean costs of development, I might come up with a figure -- based on research, development, and marketing costs of the Lisa and the Macintosh -- that exceeded the actual sticker price of my Mac by orders of magnitude. Do BellSouth's statements about the value of the E911 document amount to perjury? Probably not. But does that mean that BellSouth was fully forthcoming about the value of the E911 document? Hardly. BellSouth knew what the federal prosecutors needed to hear in order to establish federal jurisdiction over the Legion of Doom cases. Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190